On Friday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States determined that the Biden administration, along with top government health officials and the FBI, potentially breached the First Amendment. This was due to their alleged improper influence over tech companies’ actions to remove or reduce the visibility of posts related to coronavirus and elections.

The unanimous decision, authored by three judges appointed by Republican presidents, is likely to be hailed as a win by conservatives who contend that social media content moderation curtails their free speech rights. However, some advocates note that the ruling represents an improvement over the initial temporary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty on July 4.

According to David Greene, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the revised injunction is significantly better compared to the original order issued by Judge Doughty, who was appointed by former President Trump.

Judge Doughty’s ruling had broad implications across various government departments and agencies, imposing ten specific restrictions on government officials. The appeals court overturned nine of these prohibitions and adjusted the tenth to focus specifically on actions aimed at pressuring or significantly influencing social media companies to alter, suppress, or reduce content that involves protected free speech, including through changes to algorithms.

The 5th Circuit panel narrowed the scope of its ruling to include only the White House, the surgeon general’s office, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the FBI. It removed the restrictions that Judge Doughty had imposed on departments such as State, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, as well as agencies like the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The court concluded that these agencies had not exerted coercion on social media companies to moderate their platforms.

The judges asserted that the White House likely pressured social media platforms into making moderation decisions through intimidating messages and threats of negative outcomes. They also determined that the White House substantially influenced the platforms’ decision-making processes, which they deemed a violation of the First Amendment.

A spokesperson from the White House responded with a statement indicating that the Justice Department was currently “reviewing” the court’s decision and assessing potential courses of action.